Well, OJ DID do it (if you're referring to the brutal murder of his wife).
It's only because he's black and a celebrity that he got off.

Wrong. He was acquitted because the evidence was planted:
- The alternating scenes of massive amounts of spilled blood and tiny little amounts of blood depended on whether the area was open to the public, or was under OJ's lock and key.
- The gloves were too small.
- A detective brought the blood sample given by OJ to the scene.

Safer than what? I'm pretty sure it's safer than swimming in a tank with a swarm of piranhas for example, or sunning on a riverbank of the Zambezi river (famous for its maneating crocodiles).

In actuality, it is more dangerous to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk than on the street. The danger occurs when a bicycle rider enters a crosswalk at speed, without realizing that a right turning driver can't see the bike until the last second. So it is illegal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk in most locations.

The government is excellent at creating jobs. Not that the people holding those jobs are very productive, but they are jobs.
Now if the statement mentioned that the government can create economic value, that would be wrong.

Wrong. For every 10 jobs the government "creates", 11 are lost to the higher taxes needed to create the 10 jobs.

And politicians know full well what they're doing. They're filling their own pockets and increasing their personal power.

i really hate fighting so dont think that i am out to attack you at each and every corner. but you cannot possibly blame the whole religion because of a subset of the whole. i know many moslems and i would be really surprised if some of them would strap on a bomb and run into a bunch of people. perhaps you should ask why you get islamist extremists in the first place.

now dont get me wrong. i do not support either islam (since i am an atheist) or terrorists. in fact the nation i admire the most on earth is israel. but i seem to see a pattern in your behaviour. you are rather quick to hit on many things without first having a clue just what you are hitting. if you read in The Holy Koran you would see that they have laws against killing which is even more strict than those of the christians.

perhaps you should also try to understand the cultural mindset that leads to people being willing to die for what they believe (rightly or wrongly) in.

Wrong. For every 10 jobs the government "creates", 11 are lost to the higher taxes needed to create the 10 jobs.

Maybe true in some countries, but not here in usa. The jobs the government creates when it spends money gives people an income who in turn pay taxes which gives the government more money so that it can create more jobs. The federal government gives a state $100 million to build a new bridge and the state must hire 50 people to do that job. Those 50 people get paid a salary which is taxable, and at the end of the year (for most people) the send some of that money back to the federal government in the form of taxes. Where in that scenerao do you see the government increasing everyone's taxes? Our taxes are lower now than they were 8 years ago.

No. The closest I've ever come to being arrested is a parking ticket on my college campus, an incident where a teacher accused me of using 'hate' material in an assignment, and getting pulled over for going 62mph in a 50mph zone ~5 blocks from my house.

However, my father is a police officer, and I've enjoyed some of his stories enough I've sought out more stupid criminal stories elsewhere. "These aren't my pants" was the title of a collection of such, from the series 'America's Dumbest Criminals'.

obviously there is some controversy as to whether homosexuality is a choice or 'genetic'.

Choice. I've seen a couple of arguments about possible biological or genetic factors that might influence someone, but ultimately it's still the individual's choice. If nothing else, they could choose to abstain.

Maybe true in some countries, but not here in usa. The jobs the government creates when it spends money gives people an income who in turn pay taxes which gives the government more money so that it can create more jobs. The federal government gives a state $100 million to build a new bridge and the state must hire 50 people to do that job.

How is that creating new jobs? In your bridge-building example, wouldn't the contract go to already-established jobholders during the bidding process?

From what I've seen, most government-granted jobs fall into one of two formats. One of them is beaurocracy, while the other is those jobs that compete with the jobs in the private market. And in the second case, the private sector job is the one likely to lose.

Where in that scenerao do you see the government increasing everyone's taxes? Our taxes are lower now than they were 8 years ago.

But will they remain so? Your temporal measuring rod begins near the end of a liberal presidency, and ends at the present, well into the second term of a conservative presidency. For much of that time, the lawmaking body we call Congress was conservative as well. What will happen to taxes as the liberal influences become dominant again?

hey!! guys!! the phrase "the govenrment creates jobs" was meant to be a lie... it is called sarcasm... maybe you should get to know each other...

but that is exactly the point. government is capable of creating jobs. therefore the sarcasm is false by virtue of the statement being true. look at germany before the second world war. while the rest of europe was in depression the national socialists created jobs.(i am no fan of hitler in case someone is going to say so.)

btw. i am now practicing chess. got to be ready for narue if she comes back!

but that is exactly the point. government is capable of creating jobs. therefore the sarcasm is false by virtue of the statement being true. look at germany before the second world war. while the rest of europe was in depression the national socialists created jobs.(i am no fan of hitler in case someone is going to say so.)

the sarcasm cmes in when we start speaking about actual governments... mostrly western governments... like the US, Mexico, Central America... in these countries, it seems like tho government doesn't care if people without jobs starve to death... beleive me when i say so...

btw. i am now practicing chess. got to be ready for narue if she comes back!

point taken and i know exactly what you mean. in my own country the joblessness is almost 40%(though the government tries to make us believe that it is 27%). sometimes i find it hard to believe that gerhard schroeder lost his job over a measly 7%!

In order to understand the influence of government spending in our society you need to study Economics 101 and 102. This isn't the place for a year's college course in economics.

>>while the other is those jobs that compete with the jobs in the private market
No they don't. The government doesnot manufacture anything -- almost everything is purchased or farmed out to private sector. I live about seven miles from a major US military installation where they employ over 10,000 civilians as well as military and their families. The government spends a huge amount of money at that milirary installation as well as in all sourounding towns and cities. If the government stopped spending money here then all those jobs would vanish as well as thousands of jobs in local areas.

..obviously there is some controversy as to whether homosexuality is a choice or 'genetic'.

That's not true. That is, there is not a dichotomy between it being a 'choice' and being 'genetic'. A condition can be congenital but not genetic, and it can be a result of environmental (chemical) stimuli.

So the controversy would be whether it's a mental choice or if it's physiological. But that's only a controversy in Texas. It's known to be physiological.

Maybe true in some countries, but not here in usa. The jobs the government creates when it spends money gives people an income who in turn pay taxes which gives the government more money so that it can create more jobs.

That's nonsensical reasoning. If they weren't hired by the government, they'd be hired by a privately operated employer and paying the same amount in taxes.

That's nonsensical reasoning. If they weren't hired by the government, they'd be hired by a privately operated employer and paying the same amount in taxes.

You get a paycheck (assuming you are in the workforce) and you pay taxes. Those taxes go to the federal government, and the government uses those taxes to buy goods and services. The government does not manufacture those goods and services itself so it buys then from the private sector. Well, the private sector must hire someone to make the goods and services that the government wants to buy. Those people get a paycheck just like you do and pay taxes too. And this cycle continues all over again.

Nonsense you say?? Then take a course in Econ 101 and find out how it works. Its one of the most elementry theorems (if you want to call it that) of economics.

That's not true. That is, there is not a dichotomy between it being a 'choice' and being 'genetic'. A condition can be congenital but not genetic, and it can be a result of environmental (chemical) stimuli.

So the controversy would be whether it's a mental choice or if it's physiological. But that's only a controversy in Texas. It's known to be physiological.

Whether it's mental or physiological? Hmm.. The gays do tend to argue that it's biological.. However, when I put genetics in quotes, I tended it to mean more biological/physiological. There is obviously nothing in the human genome that equates to sexual orientation.. and whats this about Texas? We are one of the most conservative states in the U.S. But I suppose idiots wouldn't know that.. gays tend to be more prominent in CA and the NE.. kinda where you live.. hmmmm...

first let me say that apart from what the bible says i have nothing against gays. now that that i have absolved myself from prejudice i can contribute too.

i sincerely doubt that it can be genetic and by extension of argument even physiological.

you see there is a measure of consistency in what we find beautiful in members of the opposite gender and this cuts accross race, culture and pretty much everything. this is because what we find beautiful is directly related to perpetuation of a species. for example. the tiny chin that most men would find beautiful in a female is a direct marking of the levels of estrogen her body produces. from this one can only deduce that what we find beautiful is DNA based. no culture can so influence any significant section of its males so that they cannot find a significant proportion of women which is considered beautiful in another culture beautiful too.

so if being gay is genetic how in the first place did evolution put into this one man the instinct to understand that another man is beautiful?

i mean if men had found each other attractive for over 10 000 generations(the most conservative estimate based on the age of the human race) then just how did the DNA survived for so long without being removed from the gene pool? let me put it this way. even if dna has let to instinct in some men which make them prefer other men and they have sex with these men then just how did they transfer their dna over 10 000 generations so that their offspring living today can still find other men beautiful?

of course if there is some statistical evdence which proves me wrong or perhaps they discover a new reccesive gene which is responsible for this...

first of all... let me make myself clear... i hate gays... i hate everything that has to do with gays...

in my opinion, gayness is the worst disease there is... because that's what it is, a psychological disease, that makes a man feel attracted by another man...

there's nothing genetic, nor any physiological need, since AFAIK it is not necessary for a man to be physically satisied by another man... what is a physiological need is for a man to be satisfied by a woman, just as it was meant to be... physiological needs are those humans have from their animal being, also called instinct... such as the need to pee, to eat to sleep... or have you ever seen a dog having gay relationships with other dogs? of course not... why? because they don't have a mind to have f***ed up by some weird "need" to have someone of their same sex beside them...

gay people shouldn't be praised... his only causes more people to think this is good...

actually gay sex is the source of many diseases... maybe is a punishment to mankind for allowing this to happen... or at least i feel it that way...

even (as christians may know), God Himself is againsta gay relationships... i can't recall where it is, but it clearly says (in other words, obviously) "gays will not go to Heaven"...

conclusion... gays shouldn't exist... and it is a mistake to think they are a "nature's mistake", since gayness doesn't have its origin in anything natural, nor genetic, nor physiological... its purely mental... sick people that fancy other people from their same sex... gays are the universe's scum...

Well if you were also a creationist cretin as well, I'd say "blame the designer, it's obviously a design flaw" :icon_rolleyes:

> i hate everything that has to do with gays...
Oh good, then turn off your computer then and then we won't have to hear from you ever again.
A large chunk of modern computational theory was written by this famous gay person.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Who was essentially murdered by such myopic idiots like you who had their head stuck too far up the ass of their 'god'.

> actually gay sex is the source of many diseases...
And of course heterosexual sex is of course completely disease free - what the hell are you smoking.

> maybe is a punishment to mankind for allowing this to happen...
> gays will not go to Heaven
How nice of you to quote your mysticism at us. Do you have something substantive rather than just idle threats of "my god is better than your god"? The majority of the worlds population isn't christian (or muslim, or jew, or hindu or any other cult you care to mention).

> conclusion... gays shouldn't exist...
Height, skin colour, intelligence, longevity, etc etc.
All these human characteristics exist as a continuum from one extreme to another. IMO, it is naive to assume that sexuality would be strictly bipolar and not also capable of being expressed as a continuum as well.

> actually gay sex is the source of many diseases...
And of course heterosexual sex is of course completely disease free - what the hell are you smoking.

From the statistics I've seen, the incidence of Aquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome in the United States is something like still 98% within the somewhat overlapping communities of homosexual individuals and shared-needle drug users. (There's a reason AIDS was called the 'Gay Plague' until the Political Correctness Police shut the term down.) From what I can tell, Nichito's not saying that normal sex (yes, I just said that) is completely disease-free, he's saying that some diseases seem to have started among, and are found more commonly among, homosexuals than heterosexuals.